WA/1774/2008 of The Government of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Vs P.Preethi on 29 December 2008

1. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,

rep. by its Principal Secretary to Govt. Information Technology, "D" Block, 3rd floor, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad.

2. The Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies,Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Dean.Beside Telephone Bhavan, Saifabad, Hyderabad, rep. by its Dean.

AND

.....APPELLANT(S)

1 P.Preethi D/o.P.A.Motilal R/o. Anantasagaram, Nellore District, rep. by her Father and natural guardian P.A.Motilal S/o.P.Daniel, aged about 48 years, R/o. Anantasagaram Village & Mandal, Nellore District.2 The District Educational Officer, Nellore, Nellore District.

.....RESPONDENT(S)

Counsel for the Appellants : GP FOR GENERAL ADMINISTRATION

Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : MR.K.S.MURTHY

The Court made the following :

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMAANDTHE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAHWRIT APPEAL No.1774 of 2008

ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice D.S.R.Varma)

Heard the learned Advocate General appearing for the appellants aswell as Sri K.S.Murthy, learned counsel for the first respondent-writpetitioner.

2. This writ appeal, by the State, is directed against the order, dated24-11-2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court inW.P.M.P.No.21066 of 2008 in W.P.No.16265 of 2008, directing therespondents therein to admit the petitioner in the institution into the firstyear of IIIT course.

3. Appellant are respondent Nos.1 and 2, and respondents arepetitioner and third respondent in the writ petition.

4. For the sake of convenience, in this judgment, the parties will bereferred to as per their array in the writ petition.

5. The facts that led to filing of this writ appeal, in brief, are asunder:

The writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by theaction of the respondents in not providing her admission to the IIIT coursein the second respondent-Rajiv Gandhi University of KnowledgeTechnologies, Hyderabad, though she belongs to Scheduled Castecategory and scored 558 marks in the 10[th] Class examination.

6. A learned single Judge of this Court, after considering thesubmissions on either side and also the material available on record,through the impugned order, dated 24-11-2008, gave interim direction, the relevant portion of which reads as under:

“The petitioner, prima-facie, was denied seat, on accountof such exercise. Any delay of her admission would deny thebenefit of instructions. The very object of establishment of theUniversity and the institution is to enable the rural students, thattoo hailing from weaker and poorer sections, to pursue theirfurther studies.

There shall be interim direction to the respondents to admitthe petitioner in the institution into the first year of IIIT course atIdupulapaya. Her admission, however, shall be subject to furtherorders.”

7. Aggrieved by the said order, the Respondents have preferred thepresent writ appeal.

8. It appears that the Government had evolved a policy, called as“Rajiv Gandhi University of Knowledge Technologies Admission Policy –May 7, 2008” (for brevity “the Policy”) for identification of the students ofbrilliance for the purpose of admission into IIIT course in the secondrespondent University. The procedure and admission rules were alsoprescribed by the said Policy, dated 07-05-2008. By the said Policy, theprime object of the respondents appears to be to cater to the educationalneeds of meritorious rural youth of the State, as the opportunities for ruralstudents are significantly inadequate when compared to the students ofurban areas.

9. It is not in dispute that the candidates, who pass in 10[th] Class areeligible for selection. The selection of candidates and their admissionsinto IIIT course in the University are subject to the procedure and the rulesprescribed in the Policy.

10. This IIIT course is a Six Years course and the students, whosecured highest marks in 10[th] Class, from the rural areas only will beselected. In other words, the students coming from or educated themselves in the urban areas will not have any benefit under this Policy.

11. As per the said Policy, the total intake of topper students in theState will be 6000 at the rate of 2000 per each institute at Basara,Idupulapaya and Nuziveedu. Out of which, 15 per cent of the seats (as perthe Presidential Order) i.e., 300 seats per institute will be open for Statelevel toppers, irrespective of their region, rural/urban background category,while respecting the reservation norms.

12. Further, from every District, from every school from a Mandal,toppers will be selected and they will be pooled up, out of which the toprankers will be selected for allotment of different institutions.

13. Broadly, the procedure is that from each and every school, thetopper will be selected as contemplated under clause (13) of the saidPolicy and clause (7) of the said Policy deals with the region-wiseallocation.

14. It appears that the toppers of all the Schools in the rural Mandalwill be pooled up and the students who secured highest grade from his/herschool will be selected for admission into IIIT course in the University. Inthat process, the students, who stood top in different subjects or all puttogether will be identified as topper of the school and will be given the“grade points.”

15. It is also not in dispute that the ‘grade points’ would differ fromschool to school because of the variation in standards from one school toanother. For Eg:- A topper of a particular school in a Mandal, who scored400 marks may be given 4 grade points and the topper of a school ofanother Mandal may be given 3 grade points, though secured highermarks. Therefore, it appears that the topper of the school would be thepriority in order to pool them up in the Mandal for the purpose of admissioninto IIIT course in the University and it should be remembered that such a topper of a particular school in that Mandal would carry the same grade aswas allotted to him.

16. Therefore, from the above system, the toppers of that Mandalwould be selected. Ultimately, the Mandal is being taken as a Unit for thepurpose of selection for admission into IIIT course in the University. Inother words, the Policy of the State had percolated to the level of ruralareas of each Mandal in order to promote educational opportunities to allsections of students, while strictly adhering to the norms of reservationpolicy. However, we are not inclined to go into the minute details of thePolicy.

17. Another important point to be noted in the selection process isthat if the number of seats of a Mandal are pooled up and fraction isallotted to a Mandal, that fraction would be added to the fraction of anotherMandal, in order to make one seat more and such a seat is specificallyallotted to a candidate belonging to Scheduled Caste community. Suchallotment to Scheduled Caste candidate is in addition to the quotaprescribed under the reservation policy.

18. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is that shesecured about 558 marks in Anantasagaram Mandal of Nellore Districtand her grade points are ‘17’. Some fractions have remained in thisMandal. Therefore, as per the Policy, these fraction points have to beadded to the neighbouring Mandal in order to make one seat, which ismeant for another Scheduled Caste candidate.

19. Further, it is on record that the petitioner stood as No.3 in theorder of merit. There are two other candidates viz., (1) Ms. SatyalaLakshmamma, and (2) Kothapalli Mahendra, who secured more gradepoints than the petitioner. While the petitioner secured 17 grade points, theabove said two candidates have secured 18 grade points each.

20. In this context, the learned Advocate General submitted that theremaining fraction points have been added to Vidavalur Mandal of NelloreDistrict, and as a result, a candidate by name P.Ravindra, who scoredabout 478 marks, was selected.

21. There is a difference between the marks scored by the petitioneras well as the candidate, who got selected with lesser marks. But, it is tobe seen that as per the Policy, the candidate, who was selected fromVidavalur Mandal, scored more grade points (22 grade points) than thepetitioner.

22. To be more precise, in Anantasagaram Mandal, where thepetitioner had studied, she is the third candidate in merit list and when thefraction points are added to the other Mandal, she has been relegated tothe fourth place, inasmuch as there are 3 other candidates, who obtainedmore grade points than the petitioner.

23. From the above, it appears that it is the grade points of thatschool, which is to be taken into consideration for the purpose of selectionfor admission into IIIT course in the University, but not the total number ofmarks. The reason accorded by the learned Advocate General is simplei.e., it is the Mandal that is taken as a Unit and gradation of marks wouldvary from school to school, inasmuch as it is the toppers of that school willbe selected and they carry the grade points till the entire process ofselection is over upto the Mandal level, particularly in case where thisfractions of two Mandals are clubbed together in order to make one seatmore for the purpose of selecting a candidate belonging to ScheduledCaste community.

24. Therefore, it is the contention of the learned Advocate Generalthat, broadly the Policy of the Government is to provide educational

opportunities in IIIT course for the students belonging to rural areas onlyand, in that process, a specific policy has been evolved, which cannot bedeviated.

25. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for thepetitioner are two fold—

firstly, the comparison of the students belonging to ScheduledCaste community should be made only with another student of the samecommunity, otherwise there is every possibility of the candidates beingselected from Forward Caste community only; and secondly, Anantasagaram Mandal in which the petitioner hadstudied, instead of being amalgamated with the neighbouring Mandals forthe purpose of fraction points, had been amalgamated with VidavalurMandal, which is far away from Anantasagaram Mandal and as a result ofwhich the petitioner had lost the opportunity of her getting selection.

26. In response to the said contentions, the learned AdvocateGeneral submitted that even assuming that Anantasagaram Mandal,where the petitioner had studied, is amalgamated with any otherneighbouring Mandal, she will not be selected as per the statisticsprovided to the Court as well as the petitioner.

27. However, as there is some criticism from the learned counsel forthe petitioner that upon the instructions of the State Board of SecondaryEducation, the fractions were added to the other Mandal, the same hadbeen repelled by the learned Advocate General that there is no possibilityof adding this Mandal to other Mandals for the purpose of fractions.Therefore, they resorted to add Anantasagaram Mandal with anotherMandal, which is far away from it.

28. We cannot express any view as regards the validity orotherwise of the decision taken by the authorities. However, from thecounter affidavit filed by respondent No.2, it is to be seen that upon theinformation furnished by the Board of Secondary Education, this arrangement of amalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal with VidavalurMandal had taken place. Therefore, we cannot go into the question as towhether the policy adopted by the Government is valid or not, and underwhat circumstances the amalgamation of these Mandals had taken place.

29. The other contention of the learned counsel for the petitionerthat comparison of Scheduled Caste students should be made only withanother student of the same community belonging to the same school alsofound to be not acceptable, inasmuch as the apprehension that thestudents of other community would knock away the opportunity of aScheduled Caste student is ruled out by virtue of the implementation of thereservation policy.

30. However, the above observations of this Court are purely prima-facie in nature and we are making it clear that the said observations arenot the crystallised opinion of this Court.

31. After all, balance of convenience and prima-facie case,predominantly, would be gone into while granting any interim direction. Ofcourse, in certain cases where the decision and the implementationthereof is found to be apparently arbitrary, this Court can interfere at theinterlocutory stage.

32. Therefore, we find that there is no prima-facie case in favour ofthe petitioner.

33. Another important point to be noted is that one Sri P.Ravindrawas already selected and got admission into IIIT course about five monthsago and to unsettle his selection, at this stage, may cause prejudice to himand further that he is not made a party to the writ petition. We are notexpressing any view on this issue also, because it is for the learned singleJudge to go into that aspect and express his view after examining theissue, in detail.

34. At this stage, the learned Advocate General had relied on someobservations of the apex Court in STATE OF U.P. v. RAMONA

PERHAR[[1]], which are worth mentioning, and the same reads under:

“This Court has emphasised in several decisions that passing ofinterim orders – more particularly of a mandatory nature like thepresent one – is neither a matter of course nor a matter of charity.The power to grant interim orders is coupled with the duty toconsider all the relevant facts and legal principles relevant in thatbehalf. Admissions to educational institutions should not begranted by interim orders – at any rate, not without fully hearingthe respondents.”

35. Therefore, in cases of the present nature, which deals with theadmission into the academic institutions, it is expedient for the Courts tohear all the contesting parties, in detail, before passing any interim order.Otherwise, the interim order granted, if any, may cause prejudice to otherpersons.

36. For the aforementioned reasons, we are not convinced with thereasoning accorded by the learned single Judge while granting interimorder directing the respondents to admit the petitioner in the institution intothe first year of IIIT course and, as such, the same cannot be sustained forthe reason that the same would adversely affect the other selectedcandidate, who got admission into IIIT course and who is not made a partyto the writ petition. Therefore, the interim order, dated 24-11-2008, passedby the learned single Judge is liable to be set aside.

37. However, the learned Advocate General suggested that thepetitioner can opt for amalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal for thepurpose of fraction points with any of the neighbouring Mandals or, for thatmatter, with any of the Mandals identified as rural Mandals, and if she isable to get a seat, certainly her case would be considered and opportunitywould be accorded to her.

38. In the light of the submission made by the learned AdvocateGeneral, the petitioner is given liberty to opt for amalgamation ofAnantasagaram Mandal for the purpose of fraction points with any otherMandal, identified as rural Mandal, and if she gets a seat, in that process,the same shall be considered by the respondents. This exercise shall becompleted upon the application being made by the petitioner opting foramalgamation of Anantasagaram Mandal with any other Mandal, withutmost expedition, preferably on or before 20-01-2009, otherwise the case of the petitioner will be decided on meritsat the time of final disposal of the writ petition.

39. However, we make it clear that the observations made by thisCourt shall not be treated as the observations made basing on the meritsof the case and the learned single Judge would decide the writ petition onmerits, regardless of any of the observations made hereinabove.

40. In view of the importance of the issue involved in the writ petition,Registry is directed to post the writ petition for final hearing on 21-01-2009,subject to part heard.

41. With the above observations and directions, the writ appeal isallowed, at the stage of admission, setting aside the impugned order,dated 24-11-2008, passed by the learned single Judge inW.P.M.P.No.21066 of 2008 in W.P.No.16265 of 2008. There shall be noorder as to costs.

________________________

JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA

__________________________

JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH

29-12-2008.

NOTE: Issue C.C. in one week.

(B/O)

Msr

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R. VARMAAND

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH

WRIT APPEAL No.1774 of 2008

[1]AIR 1995 SC 241

29-12-2008

(Msr)